Mastery Learning Instruction versus Traditional Instructional Methods in Eighth Grade Language Arts

(1)

METHODS IN EIGHTH GRADE LANGUAGE ARTS

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty Of the

North Dakota State University Of Agriculture and Applied Science

By

Kelly Sue Mogen

In Partial Fulfillment For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE

Major Department: Education

June 2013

(2)

North Dakota State University

Graduate School

Title

MASTERY LEARNING INSTRUCTION VERSUS TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS IN EIGHTH GRADE LANGUAGE ARTS

By

Kelly Sue Mogen

The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of

_{MASTER OF SCIENCE} SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Anita Welch, Ph.D. Chair Larry Napoleon, Jr., Ph.D. Mari Borr, Ph.D. Donna Grandbois, Ph.D. Approved:

June 25, 2013 Dr. William Martin

(3)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of mastery learning on eighth grade language arts students primarily in terms of academic gains, but subsidiary research questions also focused on the impact of mastery learning on student sense of self-efficacy in language arts, student attitudes towards learning language arts, and on student learning styles. This study focused on the grammar portions of language arts; it did not address the reading, writing, and speaking aspects. Results from this quasi-experimental study involved 43 eighth grade language arts students from a rural, relatively homogenous school in the Midwest. Over a four month time period, it was found that mastery learning does seem to have a statistically significant positive impact on student academic success, student sense of self-efficacy, and to some extent, student attitudes towards learning. However, no statistically significant impact was found for mastery learning on learning styles.

(4)

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……….………...……..iii LIST OF TABLES……….………..…….vii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION……….……….……...1 Significance of Study..….………...……….………...2 Statement of Problem………...……….……..2 Research Questions……...……….…...…2

CHAPTER 2. NEED OF THE RESEARCH…….……….………....4

CHAPTER 3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE…..………..………..……….…5

CHAPTER 4. SCOPE OF STUDY AND LIMITATIONS…………...…….……….……..13

CHAPTER 5. METHODOLOGY………..………...14

Purpose of Study………..…………...14

Research Questions………..………..14

Classrooms...……….……….……15

Traditional Classroom………15

Mastery Learning Classroom……….………15

Participants………...………..………17

Design...……...………...…...18

Procedure……..………..………..………….…18

Instruments………...……….………...20

MAP Test...………...…….20

Students’ Motivation Questionnaire (SMOQ)……….……..21

(5)

Other Materials………..23

CHAPTER 6. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS….………...….….…..25

Purpose of Study……….………..….……25

Research Questions……….……….…..25

MAP Results………..…26

Student’s Motivation Questionnaire (SMOQ) Results………..…28

Bigg’s Revised Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) Results………..….…31

CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.…..……….….35

Primary Research Question: What Impact Does Mastery Learning Have on the Academic Gains of Eighth Grade Language Arts Students?….………..……..…35

Subsidiary Research Question 1: What Impact Does Mastery Learning Have on Student Self-Efficacy in Language Arts?………...……….………...36

Subsidiary Research Question 2: What Impact Does Mastery Learning Have on Student Attitudes Towards Learning Language Arts?………….………...…..….…37

Subsidiary Question 3: What Impact Does Mastery Learning Have on Student Learning Styles?...………….…..……….………....40

Limitations……….………...………..……….…40

Impact on Current Practices……….………..………41

CHAPTER 8. SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH………...…….………..………45

Future Research……….…....…45

Conclusions…..……….……….……46

CHAPTER 9. REFERENCES.……...……...……….……...…….………...…47

APPENDIX A. IRB ………...…….…….…...…….…….…52

APPENDIX B. SAMPLE MAP QUESTIONS...………....………....74

(6)

APPENDIX D. STUDENT MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE (SMOQ) FOR STUDY…….78 APPENDIX E. STUDENT MOTIVATION QUESTTIONNAIRE (SMOQ) ORIGINAL…….80 APPENDIX F. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT CHECKLIST….……….………..….82

(7)

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Student Gender and Age………..……….………...17 2. Non-Intervention Group Descriptive Statistics Pre- and Post-Intervention for the MAP

Test……….26 3. Intervention Group Descriptive Statistics Pre- and Post-Intervention for MAP

Test………..…...26 4. Non-Intervention Group t-Test Pre- and Post-Intervention for the MAP test….………..27 5. Intervention Group t-Test Pre- and Post-Intervention for the MAP Test…………..……27 6. Non-Intervention Group Descriptive Statistics Pre- and Post-Intervention for SMOQ

Questionnaire………...…………..28 7. Intervention Group Descriptive Statistics Pre- and Post-Intervention for SMOQ

Questionnaire…..………...………29 8. Non-Intervention Group t-Test Pre- and Post-Intervention for SMOQ Questionnaire.…30 9. Intervention Group t-Test Pre- and Post-Intervention for SMOQ Questionnaire………30 10. Non-Intervention Group Descriptive Statistics Pre- and Post-Intervention for Bigg’s

R-SPQ-2F Questionnaire………...………...……….31 11. Intervention Group Descriptive Statistics Pre- and Post-Intervention for Bigg’s

R-SPQ-2F Questionnaire………...…………..………...………32 12. Non-Intervention Group t-Test Pre- and Post-Intervention for Bigg’s R-SPQ-2F

Questionnaire ………...………...………..…33 13. Intervention Group t-Test Pre- and Post-Intervention for Bigg’s R-SPQ-2F

(8)

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Teachers face a challenge every day when they go to work because the must teach students with a variety of learning styles and abilities at the same time in the same classroom. Over the years, an array of theories and methods has been developed in an attempt to educate this diverse population in an effective manner. One such theory is mastery learning. According to Guskey (1980) mastery learning is built around the basic premise that all students are capable of learning the required material as long as they have enough time and good quality instruction, and until mastery is achieved, students do not move on to new topics. Unlike traditional instructional methods, which include rote instruction, teacher-driven time frames, and teaching to the middle performance level, mastery learning allows for differentiated instruction to take place (Eyre, 2007; Guskey, 2007; Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990; McGuire & McDonald, 2009). This means that the students drive the learning time frame – slower for some, quicker for others. The instructor’s role is instead to determine what is important for the student to learn, when they need to learn, and at what level mastery is obtained, such as 70% on a summative assessment (Diegelman-Parente, 2011). For those students that quickly reach mastery, engagement in enrichment activities provides them with challenges as well as a sense of ownership in their learning. Meanwhile, for those students that do not achieve initial mastery, a variety of

instructional techniques, methods, and interventions are employed which may include additional instruction, worksheets, peer tutoring, or guided practice to help these students also reach

mastery. The overall idea is that the gap between student achievement levels will decrease, while their understanding and sense of self-efficacy will increase.

(9)

Significance of Study

As classrooms become more and more inclusive, and various agencies increase the pressure on teachers to improve student performance, it is necessary to try to implement classroom instructional techniques that will help all students meet and master required educational standards. Traditional classroom instruction tends to teach to the middle ability students, leaving the lower ability students struggling to keep up, and the higher ability students bored and uninspired. Many standard interventions address one group or the other, usually by offering opportunities outside of the classroom for extra instruction or enrichment, but rarely all of the groups at the same time, in the same classroom on a daily basis. Mastery learning may offer an opportunity to do this. This study addresses middle school classrooms, which have largely been ignored by researchers.

Statement of the Problem

There is little current research on the influence of mastery learning on academic achievement for middle school students. The research that is available focuses primarily on college students and high school students. Because of the differences between these groups of students and middle school students, this research is of limited use in determining whether or not the implementation of mastery learning instruction in the middle school classrooms can reach students more effectively than traditional classroom instruction.

Research Questions Primary Research Question

1. What impact does mastery learning have on the academic gains of eighth grade language arts students?

(10)

Subsidiary Research Questions

1. What impact does mastery learning have on student self-efficacy in language arts?

2. What impact does mastery learning have on student attitudes towards learning language arts?

(11)

CHAPTER 2. NEED OF THE RESEARCH

Research on mastery learning is necessary because classroom teachers continue to search for instructional techniques that will have a positive impact on learning for all types of student. As classrooms continue to become more diversified, teaching practices must also evolve. Although it may sometimes be necessary to develop new instructional strategies, it would seem remiss to ignore existing concepts. The ideas and concepts surrounding mastery learning have been around for decades, yet they remain relevant to today’s educational challenges and may provide a solution to meeting student and teacher needs. Therefore, it is necessary to continue to study and develop mastery learning strategies for today’s students, classrooms, and teachers. Without continued research into the efficacy of mastery learning in the classroom, a highly effective and enduring instructional philosophy may be lost, as well as time and energy wasted on reinventing what already exists.

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the mastery learning approach on academic gains for students in an 8th grade language arts course in comparison to academic gains for students in traditional classrooms as measured by Measures of Acadmic Progress (MAP) test results. Of subsidiary interest was the impact mastery learning has on student self-efficacy in language arts and on student attitudes towards learning language arts. This study focused on the grammar portions of language arts; it did not address the reading, writing, and speaking aspects. Attention will also be directed to how student learning style, surface or deep, was affected by mastery learning. These were assessed using questionnaires, teacher classroom observations, and student journal entries.

(12)

CHAPTER 3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The influences behind mastery learning stem back to the early 1920’s when Washburne (1922) implemented the Winnetka Plan in Winnetka, IL, which focused on individualized instruction and promotion of students. A few years later, Morrison (1926) developed the “Morrison Plan” while at the University of Chicago which focused on student comprehension and the development of unit teaching, rather than traditional teaching methods. Over the years ideas changed and evolved, and in the mid 1960s the theory of mastery learning gained support from the education community.

One approach to mastery learning was proposed by Benjamin Bloom. Bloom developed a method of instruction with the goal of meeting the need for instructional differentiation as well as a flexible timeframe to help meet student needs. Bloom developed his theory in the mid-1960s after spending time observing teachers and students in classrooms. He proposed that educators needed to differentiate their instruction in order to successfully help all students learn, and that a majority of students could learn, they just needed adequate time to learn. In 1968 he introduced his instructional strategy called Learning For Mastery (LFM), a student-paced group-based learning method. In it he presented specific tenets necessary for teachers to implement it in their classrooms in terms of both instruction and assessment (Guskey, 2007). This method continues to elicit interest from educators and administrators decades later in trying to meet the pressures of the constantly changing world of education.

Schunk (2000) proposed that Bloom’s model involved four different elements: defining mastery, planning for mastery, teaching for mastery, and grading for mastery (as cited in

Zimmerman & DiBenedetto, 2008, p. 208). A standard of mastery is established prior to the implementation of instruction on the unit, usually a score of between 70% and 80% depending

(13)

on what the teacher decides (usually a “C” equivalent), and those students who attain that score are considered to have mastered the concept or skill. Teachers organize one to two week instructional units that have specific learning goals, and once completed, a brief, formative assessment is given which provides each student with feedback. Those that do not reach the defined mastery level on the initial formative assessment are provided with specific correctives based on the items they answered incorrectly.

Crijnen, Feehan, and Kellam (1998) and McGuire and McDonald (2009) found that there are many different facets of the mastery learning approach that lead to its effectiveness, not just one element. McGuire and McDonald (2009) explained that under the instructional strategies of mastery theory, students learn best when they are able to repeat a cycle of studying, testing, and feedback. This process continues until all students attain mastery and are ready to move on to the next concept. While the students who did not meet the mastery level work an additional day or two on corrective measures, the students that attained the mastery level engage in enrichment activities that are usually self-selected such as special projects, academic games, complex

problem-solving tasks, or peer tutoring (Guskey, 2007). The students that are continuing to work towards mastery attempt another parallel formative assessment after the additional correctives are completed, and if mastery is attained, they move on to the enrichment activities, if not, additional instruction with the teacher or mastery level peers are given. Gentile (2004) felt that peer-tutoring should be a part of all mastery programs because only when a student has taught what they have learned to someone else did he feel that they would actually be cognizant of or apply their knowledge. This is yet another way that mastery learning helps improve student sense of self-efficacy and attitudes towards learning language arts.

(14)

In a meta-analysis of 108 controlled evaluations of mastery learning programs, Kulik et al. (1990) found that mastery learning had positive effects on academic achievement in students from elementary through college. Of the 108 studies, 72 used Fred S. Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) method for college-level teaching and 36 used Bloom’s LFM method to teach first grade through college-level students. Of the 108 studies, 103 reported results from a final test given at the end of instruction, and all but seven reported positive effects for the

mastery learning programs. Statistically significant results were reported in 67 of the 96 studies with an average of about 0.5 SD - enough to move students from the 50th to the 70th percentile. They also compared LFM and PSI results and found a slight difference in the average SD for the different methods. Results for the PSI tests showed that scores improved by an average of 0.48 SD, while LFM raised test scores by 0.59 SD. There were no reports of statistically significant negative results for any of the studies.

The mastery learning method does seem to have a positive academic affect on students, but Geeslin (1984) was interested in what the students that were taught using the LFM method thought of mastery learning. A group of 1,013 Kentucky students who had just completed several weeks of learning through the LFM model were asked to write or dictate an answer to the

following prompt: “Write something about the unit. If you liked it, tell why; if you didn’t like it, tell why you didn’t” (Geeslin, 1984, p. 147). The investigator then read each response and categorized each as liked, disliked, or uncertain. Of the 1,013 students, 804 responded positively about LFM. Across all grades and all subject areas except one, students liked LFM, and the chi square that was produced was large enough that it could not be attributed to chance. The only students that did not approve of LFM were in the subject area of agriculture, and the researcher did not supply any feedback from those students to explain why. Zimmerman and Dibenedetto

(15)

(2008) also interviewed students after they had been or were currently being taught using mastery learning methods in math at a Tennessee high school. These students reported, “A high sense of confidence or self-efficacy for math, high self-evaluation with their progress, and high goal standards” (Zimmerman & DiBenedetto, 2008, p. 215). The additional benefits of mastery learning instruction include an improvement in self-efficacy and a change in the types of goals students set, which often carry over into other classrooms, even those not using the mastery method of instruction. A meta-analysis done by Guskey and Pigott (1998) on group-based mastery learning programs found that over the 46 studies they reviewed, mastery learning showed a positive impact on both student academic and affective learning results.

Although LFM appears to be a straightforward approach for helping reach all types of students in the classroom, some concerns have surfaced(Ironsmith & Eppler, 2007; Lai & Biggs, 1994; and Livingston & Gentile, 1996). One area of concern has been that mastery learning impacts deep and surface learners differently. Biggs (1987) explained that deep learners have different motivations and strategies than surface learners do. For example, deep learners have an intrinsic desire to learn, and want to build knowledge in a subject area. They often seek to make connections to previous knowledge or apply it to real world situations. Surface learners are instead motivated to achieve an academic mark and work only to achieve that mark. They try to balance not doing enough while at the same time not doing more than is necessary. They do not learn to extend their knowledge or to gain competency. Instead they learn to meet an academic requirement. They want to simply memorize and identify, rather than explore and expand.

Lai and Biggs (1994) studied mastery learning using five grade nine biology classes. Three of the classes were taught using the LFM method, and two were used as control classes. They found that the mastery classes performed better than the control classes, and within those

(16)

mastery classes, those students with a bias towards surface learning approach did better than others. Looking only at comparing the members within the experimental group, Lai and Biggs (1984) used the Learning Process Questionnaire to measure learning biases. They found that those students with a surface learning bias were motivated to study when the LFM method was used, while it tended to diminish interest and performance in deep-learners. This is an area of concern because, although the goal is for all students to meet mastery, it is also important that all students are challenged and engaged. It is important that in striving for gains with those students that struggle, teachers do not lose students who quickly master new concepts.

Much like Ironsmith and Eppler (2007) and Lai and Biggs (1994), Kulik et al. (1990) found that the students that benefited the most from mastery learning were the low-aptitude students. Ironsmith and Eppler (2007) studied 576 undergraduate students using the PSI mastery method. Although the researchers found that all aptitude levels, low to high, in the control group achieved higher final test scores than the lecture students, the strongest effects were for the lowest GPA students. Although this finding was positive, there is concern that mastery learning may promote surface learning, which does not have long-term benefits for students in terms of analytical and cognitive skills.

Some researchers have found additional concerns with using mastery learning. Livingston and Gentile (1996) tested two variations of Bloom’s decreasing variability

hypothesis, which proposed that with mastery learning, the differences between slower and faster learners would decrease over successive units. This should mean that over time there should be a less variability among students, as well as in the correlation between aptitude and achievement on later units. However, Livingston and Gentile (1996) found that there is no evidence to

(17)

there appeared to be little change at all in the learning rate over the three to six units during which the students were exposed to the mastery learning method.

While Livingston and Gentile were concerned with some secondary hypotheses of Bloom, Martinez and Martinez (1999) were interested in determining if it was really the mastery learning positively impacting academic achievement, or the teacher utilizing the mastery learning method. Their study involved 80 students enrolled in one of four sections of a basic skills

undergraduate mathematics class. The same excellent or master teacher, using the LFM method in two of the classes and the traditional method in the other two, taught all four sections. The researchers tracked teaching time per class and per student, which included time spent on preparing and grading tests, student meetings during office hours, and delivering corrective feedback. The researchers found no significant difference in student achievement on the final test across the mastery and traditional classes, but they did find that teacher time was nearly twice as much for the LFM classes. They proposed that it is the excellence of the teacher, not necessarily the use of the mastery method that leads to higher achievement results from the students. Their findings suggest that there may be a teacher-effect/procedural-effect confound.

Research has focused not only on the academic affects of mastery learning on academic success, but also on how it may affect student motivation. Changeiywo, Wambugu, and

Wachanga (2011) focused on the effect of mastery learning on student motivation, particularly towards learning secondary school physics. They studied 161 Kenya students that were all taught the same course content, but the control group was taught using traditional methods while the experimental groups received instruction using the mastery learning method. The researchers were interested not only in motivation, but whether or not gender influenced motivation. They assessed this by having students completing the Students Motivation Questionnaire (SMOQ)

(18)

before and after the treatment effect. Although the results for gender were found to not be a significant influence on motivation to learn physics, the results did show that students in the mastery learning sections had significantly higher motivation than those taught using traditional methods.

Palardy (1993) proposed that although most research has shown that LFM positively affects student attitudes and achievement at all grade levels, the implementation of LFM may be challenging, and it is not well suited for all subject areas or units. However, LFM is not an all or nothing instructional strategy; in fact, it may function more effectively when paired with

cooperative learning strategies. Krank and Moon (2001) were interested in comparing the success of mastery learning, cooperative learning, and a combined mastery/cooperative learning strategies on students’ academic self-concepts and academic achievement outcomes. They used 104 undergraduate social science students enrolled in seven sections of a required upper level social science course. Students self-selected into all sections, and then the sections were

randomly assigned to one of three teaching conditions: mastery learning, cooperative learning, or cooperative learning with a mastery learning element for individual, but not group,

performance. The researchers used the Self Description Questionnaire III (SDQIII), which is used to measure 13 different areas of academic and non-academic self-concept, for a pretest and posttest measure of academic self-concept. There was no pretest measure was for academic achievement, only the final test scores were used to compare the three groups academically. Krank and Moon (2001) concluded that for undergraduate students the combined

mastery/cooperative learning treatment produced a larger change in self-concept and higher course outcome achievement than either of the learning treatments alone.

(19)

Overall, the mastery learning theory, regardless of the method used to implement it, seems to be effective in improving student academic achievement, motivation, subject satisfaction, and academic self-concept. There are some confound concerns that the types of teachers that implement mastery learning methods are usually themselves exceptional teachers, making it hard to separate the method for the implementer. There are also concerns that mastery learning, while benefiting low-aptitude learner and surface learners, may actually have a negative effect on high-aptitude and deep learners. The classroom feedback from teachers also seems to imply that it may be necessary to develop a better implementation model for teachers to follow. However, the research findings seem to be overwhelmingly positive for the most part, and with proper implementation, mastery learning seems to be a legitimate answer to meeting the needs of nearly all students in the classroom effectively, especially when combined with other cooperative learning strategies.

(20)

CHAPTER 4. SCOPE OF STUDY AND LIMITATIONS

The research provided information on the impact of mastery learning in an eighth grade middle school English classroom. The focus of this study was narrow in that it only addressed the grammar elements of the language arts curriculum and not the reading or speaking aspects. This study included only eighth grade students at one school, and the student group was

relatively homogeneous, which may make generalizing the results difficult. The number of students involved in the study is small at 43, but adequate to gather useful data. Because this was a quasi-experimental classroom study, there are also confounding variables that cannot be

controlled for such as teacher expertise, student learning abilities, peer influences, socioeconomic factors, and parental involvement.

(21)

CHAPTER 5. METHODOLOGY Purpose of Study

This quasi-experimental study focused primarily on the impact of mastery learning on student academic achievement. Additional subsidiary interests included the impact of mastery learning on student sense of self-efficacy in language arts, attitudes towards language arts, and learning styles in language arts. The independent variables for this study included measures of student self-efficacy, attitudes, and learning styles in language arts. This study focused on the grammar portions of language arts; it did not address the reading, writing, and speaking aspects. The dependent variable for all research questions was the introduction of mastery learning instruction in the classroom. The study started in October of 2012 and concluded in April of 2013, which coincided with quarters two and three of the middle school calendar. The

intervention was completed at the end of quarter three in early March, but MAP testing was not conducted by the school until mid-April.

(22)

Classrooms Traditional Classroom

The traditional classroom involved a teacher-driven classroom, with the teacher determining the topic, the type of discussion, and the amount of time given for students on the assignment in class. Physically the classroom had desks in neat rows, facing the white board and the teacher podium. The teacher spent about 15 to 30 minutes of the class giving instruction which involved notes on the board that students were expected to record in their notebooks, examples from the book that the class and teacher went through together, as well as teacher generated examples on the board. The teacher randomly chose students to answer questions, usually from volunteers, but making sure that all students were called on. After the instruction time was over, the teacher handed out the assignment, which the students started to work on in class. The teacher walked around the room for a few minutes, but then students were encouraged to come to the teacher with questions or problems. The assignment was generally due the next day in class, and after the chapter from the book had been completed, a unit test was

administered. Corrections were rarely allowed on papers or tests, and only occurred when students had obviously misunderstood the directions or the teacher felt the material needed to be covered again based on class performance.

Mastery Learning Classroom

The mastery learning classroom was the same as the traditional classroom in appearance, instructional material, and information that was presented. The teacher instruction timeframe, instruction, and post-instruction were the same as the traditional classroom. At the end of the unit, students received the same test as the traditional class. The test was corrected and returned the next instructional day, and based on a mastery level of 70% (the lowest “C”) on the test,

(23)

those students engaged in enrichment activities, such as computer based grammar games, analogy or critical thinking sheets, assisted with peer tutoring or completed the diagnostic preview for the next chapter. Meanwhile those students that had not met mastery met one-on-one or in a small group with the teacher to discuss the concept(s) that the students had struggled with. On the tests for the students that did not meet mastery, each section of material was broken down and graded for mastery, and then the students focused only on those elements for

additional instruction. Because there are two whiteboards in the room, one in the front, and one in the back, it was possible for the additional instruction to take place at the rear of the classroom with boardwork and examples without disturbing the other students.

Once additional instruction had occurred, students were assigned individual assignments on just the concepts they had not reach mastery on. These assignments were due the next day at the beginning of the day during the students’ homebase class period. This was a 15 minute time block that was part of the middle school schedule that was geared towards getting students organized for the day, reading, or completing homework. By having the additional assignments due at the beginning of the day, rather than waiting for class, it saved both the students and teacher valuable class time because the assignments could be reviewed before class. If students reached a mastery level grade on the assignment, and they were given a second unit exam that was parallel to, but different than the first exam, retesting only on the portion(s) of the exam that the student had not reached mastery on. If the student did not reach mastery on the first

corrective assignment, students received additional one-on-one time with the teacher, before class when possible, or at the beginning of class. Sometimes students were able to do the

additional correctives or take the test during their study hall, which again made the process move more quickly.

(24)

Once the student completed the second unit test, the teacher again corrected the test. If mastery was reached by all students at this point then the entire class moved on; if not, the mastery level students engaged in enrichment activities for an additional day while the non-mastery level students received one-on-one instruction from the teacher. This cycle continued for a total of three opportunities; at this point, those students not at the mastery level received additional instruction during homebase and study hall periods, but they and the class moved on to a new topic.

Participants

The study was carried out in three eighth grade language arts classrooms at Central Cass Middle School in Casselton, ND, a small, rural community. The potential pool consisted of 45 students. All but one student chose to participate in the study, and one student moved away before the study was completed so that data was removed, so 43 students completed the study. As summarized in Table 1, the study consisted of 43 students ranging in age from 13 to 15 years. They were relatively homogenious in terms of ethnicity, culture, and socioeconomic status, and all of the students spoke English.

Table 1

Student Gender and Age

Age Male Female Total

13 2 4 6

14 20 16 36

15 1 0 1

Total 23 20 43

Three eighth grade language arts classrooms were used to conduct the study. Two of the classrooms served as intervention classrooms, with a total of 29 students starting the study and

(25)

28 completing the study. The remaining classroom served as the non-intervention classroom and consisted of 15 students.

Design

The primary focus of the study was the use of mastery instruction and its impact on student academic gains, with a subsidiary focus on student sense of self-efficacy in language arts, student attitude towards language arts, and student learning styles. Of the 43 students, 28 were taught using the mastery method and 15 were taught using the traditional method. The study was quasi-experimental using a mixed methods approach since the students were assigned to

classrooms by the middle school principal, and then two of the classrooms were chosen to receive the intervention, and one continued with tradiational classroom instruction. Researchers used quantitative and qualitative methods of gathering data from multiple sources regarding academic acheivement, student self-efficacy, student learning style, and student attitude towards learning language arts. Descriptive statistics including the mean, N, standard deviation, and standard error mean were calculated for all messures. Pre- and post-intervention paired sample t tests were conducted on pre- and post- Map scores, the Biggs and the SMOQ questionnaires. The Cohen’s D for effect size was calculated on those results which were significant.

Procedure

Random class assignment for students was not possible since students were assigned to classes based on class scheduling needs; however, the classroom treatments were assigned randomly. All procedures from the Institutional Research Board were followed regarding student and parental permission (see Appendix A). Questionaires were completed by and data was collected from only those students that returned both the parental permission form and the student permission form. All students, whether included in the study or not, received the same

(26)

information, assessments, and interventions based on either traditional instructional methods or mastery learning methods.

MAP testing (see Appendix B) occured in early October, which provided an academic baseline for all students before any change in instructional method was employed. This was a schoolwide achievement test, and the results were immediately reported to each student individually. Administration provided a summary report to the researcher within 24 hours of testing. After the MAP tests had been completed, students in the study completed the Biggs Revised Student Process Questionnaire R-SPQ-2F (see Appendix C), to establish a baseline for student learning styles (deep or shallow), and the Students' Motivation Questionnaire (SMOQ) (see Appendix D) to establish a baseline for student self-efficacy in language arts and student attitudes towards learning language arts. The student who did not participate in the study read during this time, since that is one of the options that homebase is used for.

After the fall MAP testing was completed, mastery learning instruction was introduced in two sections of the classes while the other section continued with traditional instruction. For the mastery learning groups this meant there was sometimes a day or two delay before the class moved on to a new topic. During that time mastery student engaged in enrichment activities while the non-mastery students engaged in reteaching, relearning, and retesting. A limit of three attempts at the mastery unit test was set, but if the student did not meet mastery during that time frame, the teacher did continue to instruct that student in one-on-one time that did not take classtime away from the other students.

All classes covered the same material, just the approach to learning was changed. Student journal responses were collected after completing each unit, and those responses were coded once the research time period had been completed. Each response was coded as positive,

(27)

negative, or neutral (neither positive or negative) by the same researcher for consistency. Researcher observations during classtime were recorded once a month throughout the study regarding student engagement in the classroom, and these observations were coded as engaged or not engaged. For those students identified as not being engaged, a brief description was given.

MAP testing was administered again in mid-April, after which the same surveys used before the introduction of the mastery learning were administered to all participants. The posttest Biggs Questionaire (R-SPQ-2F) asked the same questions to the non-intervention group and intervention groups as it did in the pretest; however, the posttest SMOQ, while remaining the same for the non-intervention group, specifically referred to language arts using the mastery learning approach in the questions for the intervention group. These questionnaires were the post measure used to assess the impact of mastery learning on student motivation, study processes, and sense of language arts self-efficacy.

Class quarterly grades were not used to measure academic achievement as originally discussed in the study’s IRB due to the difficulty in controlling for all possible confounding variables in classroom instruction. Instead MAP test scores were used as the only measure of academic achievement since the environment in which they occurred was the same for nearly all students.

Instruments MAP Test

MAP (Measures of Acadmic Progress) testing results from the fall were used as a baseline for student academic ability and then again in the spring to measure student growth. The MAP test was chosen because it is an existing academic test that all students are required to take by the school district, and is aligned the state standards. This computer-based academic

(28)

assessment tool has the ability to individualize itself to each student’s performance based on student responses- a correct response leads to a more challenging question; an incorrect answer leads to a simpler one (Northwest Evaluation Association, 2013).

The results from the language arts portion of the test were utilized for this study. The test reports outcomes in terms of percentile, achievement scores, and growth scores, which are shown using the RIT scale (Rausch Unit). The RIT is an equal-interval scale used to track student understanding irrespective of grade level, which allows student progress to be tracked from year to year (Northwest Evaluation Association, 2013). The MAP test was used to assess student academic achievement.

Students’ Motivation Questionnaire (SMOQ)

Students also completed the Students' Motivation Questionnaire (SMOQ), which was constructed based on Keller’s ARCS motivation theory (Changeiywo et. al, 2011, p. 1339). According to John Keller (1987) four conditions that must exist for a learner to become and remain motivated are attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction; within those four factors, certain conditions and factors are important. Although the number of items under each cateory was given, the corresponding item numbers were not given so the researchers for the current study placed the items into the four categories based on Keller’s definition of each of his conditions (see Appendix D).

The SMOQ was validated by Wachanga (2002) and Buntting, Coll & Campbell (2006) and modified to suit the study. The original questionnaire consisted of 28 items that were intended to measure student attitudes towards learning. There were eight questions each to assess relevance and confidence, seven to assess attention, and six for satisfaction, and these were answered using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly and 5 = strongly agree). For this study,

(29)

two questions, numbers 22 and 23 (see Appendix E) were eliminated since they were not relevant to the study. The other changes made to the questionnaire were to change the subject being studied from physics to langage arts, and for the pre-intervention questionnaire to change the wording from “mastery learning approach” to “traditional classroom approach” at the beginning of each series of questions. For the post-intervention survey, the questionnaire administered to the non-intervention group remained the same, but the wording was changed back to “mastery learning approach” for the intervention group at the beginning of each series of questions.

This survey was chosen by researchers becauase the language in it was appropriate for middle school students, and it was revised to measure student attitudes towards language arts and self-efficacy in language arts. Student attitudes towards learning and their sense of self-efficacy are strongly tied to academic success, so it is important to see if mastery learning can affect not only academic performance but also improve student attitudes towards learning and student sense of self-efficacy. If this happens, then it is much more likely that students will develop more positive attitudes and sense of self-efficacy towards learning across subject areas, moving the impact of mastery learning outside the mastery learning classroom into other classrooms regardless of instructional style.

Revised Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F)

The students in the study completed the Biggs Revised Student Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), revised by Biggs, Kember, & Leugn (2001), both pre- and post-intervention. This is a 20 question survey that assesses learning style and strategies, based on a surface or deep

approach, across a 5-point likert scale (1 = never/rarely and 5 = Always/Almost Always). The R-SPQ-2F was validated by Immekus and Imbrie (2010), although they did have concerns that

(30)

some questions may be culturally sensitive. To make it easier for students to complete, the questionnaire’s format was revised by the current researcher by placing answer choices under each question, rather than using the questions with the answer scale given once at the top and an opscan type sheet for answers. The Bigg’s R-SPQ-2F was chosen for use because the language in it was appropriate for eighth grade students, and because it is a measure for how students study and the reasons they study. This is important, because one of the goals of mastery learning would be to promote deep learning (learning to gain knowledge about a topic for applications to the real world) and move away from surface learning (learn the information necessary to pass the test or complete the assignment), as well as to move students towards deep motivations (gain knowledge, desire to learn) for learning rather than surface motivations (receive a good grade, compete with other students in the class, fulfill the course requirements).

Other Materials

Students completed open-ended directed journal entries after the completition of each chapter. The three questions were as follows:

1) What did you learn in this unit?

2) How confident are you about what you learned? 3) How do you feel about learning langauge arts?

These journal entries were used to assess self-efficacy and attitude towards learning language arts as well as whether the learning goal for the unit had been accomplished. Teacher

observations were recorded using a simple chart (See Appendix F) for assessing student engagement in the classroom at various times throughout the intervention to explore how classroom type (mastery or traditional) impacted student achievement. Students were identified

(31)

as being either engaged or not engaged, and if they were not engaged, a brief discription of the off-task behavior was included such as visiting, needing redirection, confusion etc.

(32)

CHAPTER 6. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the mastery learning approach on academic gains for students in 8th grade language arts in comparison to academic gains for students in traditional classrooms as measured by MAP (Measures of Acadmic Progress) test results. Of subsidiary interest was the impact mastery learning has on student self-efficacy in language arts and on student attitudes towards learning language arts. Attention will also be directed to how student learning style, surface or deep, was affected by mastery learning. These were assessed using questionnaires, teacher classroom observations, and student journal entries.

3. What impact does mastery learning have on student learning styles?

Students completed the MAP test, the SMOQ questionnaire, and the Biggs (R-SPQ-2F) questionnaire pre- and post-intervention. Any missing data was ignored so the N varied across measures. One student left the study before the study was completed, so that student’s data was removed prior to running any statistically analyses. Descriptive statistics including the mean,

(33)

standard deviation, and standard error mean along with paired sample t-tests for both the

intervention and non-intervention groups were run on the pre- and post data using SPSS Version 21. Cohen’s D was calculated for those variables that reached significance to measure effect size.

MAP Results

The MAP test was administered by the school district to all of the eighth grade students in early October (pre) and again in mid-April (post). The purpose of using this data was to focus on academic growth for students from the fall to the spring. The MAP scores were analyzed using paired sample descriptive statistics as shown in Table 2 for the non-intervention group (Mfall = 226.13, SD = 6.92; Mspring = 230.13, SD = 1.85) and in Table 3 for the mastery learning

group (Mfall = 225.71, SD = 8.30; Mspring = 228.43, SD = 9.59). The outcomes show that both

groups of students experienced positive academic growth during the period of the mastery learning intervention.

Table 2

Non-Intervention Group Descriptive Statistics Pre- and Post-Intervention for the MAP Test Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Fall MAP 226.13 15 6.917 1.786

Spring MAP 230.13 15 7.170 1.851

Table 3

Intervention Group Descriptive Statistics Pre- and Post-Intervention for MAP Test

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Fall MAP 225.71 28 8.299 1.568

(34)

A paired sample t-test with an alpha value of 0.05 was conducted to determine whether there was statistical significance between the pre- and post intervention means for both the non-intervention group (Table 4) and the mastery learning group (Table 5). The non-non-intervention group t(14) = -2.02, p = .063, did not differ significantly in its pre- and post- intervention mean scores. However, the mastery learning group t(27) = -2.44, p = .021; d = -.36 did show that MAP scores were affected significantly with a medium effect size by the introduction of mastery learning. Both groups showed positive increases in their mean MAP scores, but only the mastery learning group showed statistically significant results for improving academic achievement. Table 4

Non-Intervention Group Paired Samples t-Test Pre- and Post-Intervention for the MAP test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Mean Lower Upper t df

Sig. (2-tailed) Fall MAP – Spring MAP -4.000 7.663 1.978 -8.243 .243 -2.022 14 .063 Table 5

Intervention Group Paired Samples t-Test Pre- and Post-Intervention for the MAP Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviatio n Std. Error

Sig. (2-tailed) Fall MAP -

(35)

Student’s Motivation Questionnaire (SMOQ) Results

The 26-question SMOQ used for this study was scored across four variables – attention (Attn), relevance (Rele), confidence (Conf), and satisfaction (Sat) - by the study’s researchers based Keller’s ARCS conditions according to his motivation theory (see Appendix E). A variable computation was done using the appropriate questions for each condition, and the resulting four variables were then analyzed using paired sample descriptive statistics as shown in for the non-intervention group in Table 6 and the non-intervention group in Table 7.

Table 6

Non-Intervention Group Descriptive Statistics Pre- and Post-Intervention for SMOQ Questionnaire

Attn pre 19.3333 15 2.63674 .68080

Pair 1 Attn post 17.3333 15 1.44749 .37374

Rele pre 21.2000 15 4.60124 1.18804

Pair 2 Rele post 23.0667 15 2.60403 .67236

Conf pre 25.4000 15 4.86680 1.25660

Pair 3 Conf post 24.8000 15 2.42605 .62640

Sat pre 20.5000 14 3.97589 1.06260

Pair 4 Sat post 20.2857 14 3.09910 .82827

Note. Attn = Attention; Rele = Relevance; Conf = Confidence; Sat = Satisfaction; pre = pre-intervention; post =

post-intervention

The attention variable (MAttnpre = 19.33, SD = 2.64; MAttnpostt = 17.33, SD = 1.45),

confidence variable (MConfpre = 25.40, SD = 4.87; MConfpost = 24.80; SD = 2.43), and the

satisfaction variable (MSatpre l= 20.50, SD = 3.98; MSatpost= 20.29, SD = 3.10) all showed

decreases. The relevance variable (MRelepre = 21.20, SD = 4.60; MRelepost = 23.07, SD = 2.60) was

(36)

Table 7

Intervention Group Descriptive Statistics Pre- and Post-Intervention for SMOQ Questionnaire Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Attn pre 18.8214 28 2.40453 .45441 Pair 1 Attn post 17.5357 28 1.89506 .35813 Rele pre 19.3571 28 4.65247 .87923 Pair 2 Rele post 22.1786 28 3.23240 .61087 Conf pre 23.4815 27 4.79078 .92199 Pair 3 Conf post 23.9630 27 3.54619 .68247 Sat pre 18.6429 28 3.66378 .69239 Pair 4 Sat post 19.5000 28 2.72845 .51563

post-intervention

The results from the intervention group also shows the attention variable mean decreased during the intervention period (MAttnpre = 18.82, SD = 2.40; MAttnpostt = 17.54, SD = 1.90), but the

relevance variable (MRelepre = 19.36, SD = 4.65; MRelepost = 22.18, SD = 3.23) confidence variable

(MConfpre = 23.48, SD = 4.79; MConfpost = 23.96; SD = 3.55), and the satisfaction variable (MSatpre =

18.64, SD = 3.66; MSatpos t= 19.5, SD = 2.73) all showed increases in their mean scores during the

intervention period.

A paired sample t-test with an alpha value of 0.05 was used to determine whether there was statistical significance between the pre- and post interventions for both the non-intervention group (Table 8) and the intervention group (Table 9) on the same variables. The outcomes were examined to ascertain what impact mastery learning had on student self-efficacy in and attitudes towards learning language arts.

The non-intervention group tattn(14) = 2.60, p = .021; d = .88 showed a significant change

with a large effect size for the student attention variable. However, for trele (14) = -1.56, p =

(37)

Table 8

Non-Intervention Group Paired Samples t-Test Pre- and Post-Intervention for SMOQ Questionnaire Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Sig. (2-tailed) Attn pre – Attn post 2.00000 2.97610 .76842 .35189 3.64811 2.603 14 .021 Rele pre – Rele post -1.86667 4.62704 1.19470 -4.42904 .69570 -1.562 14 .140 Conf pre – Conf post .60000 3.75690 .97003 -1.48050 2.68050 .619 14 .546 Sat pre -Sat

post .21429 3.14223 .83980 -1.59999 2.02856 .255 13 .803

post-intervention Table 9

Intervention Group Paired Samples t-Test Pre- and Post-Intervention for SMOQ Questionnaire Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Sig. (2-tailed) Attn pre – Attn post 1.28571 2.71971 .51398 .23112 2.34031 2.502 27 .019 Rele pre – Rele post -2.82143 4.66709 .88200 -4.63114 -1.01172 -3.199 27 .004 Con pre – Con post -.48148 4.20046 .80838 -2.14313 1.18017 -.596 26 .557 Sat pre – Sat post -.85714 3.13539 .59253 -2.07292 .35864 -1.447 27 .160

(38)

The intervention group showed a significant change for the student attention variable tattn(27) = 2.50, p = .019; d = .88 with a large effect size, and the relevance variable trele (27) =

-3.20, p = .004; d = -.82, which also had a large effect size. However, the confidence variable tconf

(26) = -.60, p = .557; and satisfaction variable tsat (27) = -1.45, p = .160 did non-statistically

significantly in their pre- and post- intervention scores.

Bigg’s Revised Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) Results

The Bigg’s questionnaire, following the developer’s scoring instructions, was scored across four learning styles: Deep Motive (DM), Deep Strategy (DS), Surface Motive (SM), and Surface Strategy (SS). A variable computation was done using the appropriate questions for each style as provided by the developer. Those four variables were then analyzed using paired sample descriptive statistics as shown in Table 10 for the non-intervention group, and Table 11 for the intervention group.

Table 10

Non-Intervention Group Descriptive Statistics Pre- and Post-Intervention for Bigg’s R-SPQ-2F Questionnaire

DM pre 11.6000 15 2.92282 .75467 Pair 1 DM post 13.2000 15 4.07431 1.05198 DS pre 12.4667 15 3.37780 .87214 Pair 2 DS post 12.4000 15 3.31231 .85524 SM pre 12.0667 15 3.73146 .96346 Pair 3 SM post 12.3333 15 4.56175 1.17784 SS pre 15.5000 14 2.90225 .77566 Pair 4 SS post 14.9286 14 3.26907 .87370

Note. DM = Deep Motive; DS = Deep Strategy; SM = Surface Motive; SS = Surface Strategy; pre =

pre-intervention; post = post-intervention

Table 10 shows a positive increase in the means for the non-intervention group on the deep motivation variable (MDMpre= 11.60, SD = 2.92; MDMpost = 13.20, SD = 4.07), as well as for

(39)

the surface motivation variable (MSMpre = 12.07, SD = 3.73; MSMpost = 12.33, SD = 4.56).

However, minimal decreases occurred for the deep strategy (MDSpre = 12.47, SD = 3.38; MDSpost =

12.40, SD = 3.31) and surface strategy variables (MSSpre = 15.50, SD = 2.90; MSSpost = 14.93, SD=

3.27). Table 11

Intervention Group Descriptive Statistics Pre- and Post-Intervention for Bigg’s R-SPQ-2F Questionnaire

DM pre 11.1071 28 3.76474 .71147 Pair 1 DM post 11.8929 28 4.75581 .89876 DS pre 10.9231 26 3.47474 .68145 Pair 2 DS post 12.2692 26 4.52157 .88675 SM pre 12.4286 28 4.65418 .87956 Pair 3 SM post 12.5357 28 4.91771 .92936 SS pre 14.1429 28 2.70410 .51103 Pair 4 SS post 14.3214 28 3.43245 .64867

Table 11 shows that for the intervention group there were mean gains across all variables, with the largest gain being in the deep strategy variable (MDSpre = 10.92, SD = 3.48; MDSpost =

12.27, SD = 4.52). There was also an increase in the mean for the deep motivation variable

(MDMpre = 11.11, SD = 3.77; MDMpost = 11.89, SD = 4.76), the surface motivation variable,

(MSMpre = 12.43, SD = 4.65; MSMpost = 12.54; SD = 4.92), and the surface strategy variable (MSSprel

= 14.14, SD = 2.70; MSSpost = 14.32, SD = 3.43), although these increases were minimal.

A paired sample t-test with an alpha value of 0.05 was used to determine whether there was statistical significance between the pre- and post interventions for both the non-intervention group (Table 12) and the intervention group (Table 13) on the same variables. These results were analyzed to see if the intervention had an impact on student learning styles.

(40)

Table 12

Non-Intervention Group Paired Samples t-Test Pre- and Post-Intervention for Bigg’s R-SPQ-2F Questionnaire Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Sig. (2-tailed) DM pre – DM post -1.60000 3.96052 1.02260 -3.79326 .59326 -1.565 14 .140 DS pre – DS post .06667 2.81493 .72681 -1.49219 1.62552 .092 14 .928 SM pre – SM post -.26667 4.13118 1.06667 -2.55444 2.02111 -.250 14 .806 SS pre – SS post .57143 4.14570 1.10798 -1.82223 2.96508 .516 13 .615

pre-intervention; post = post-intervention Table 13

Intervention Group Paired Samples t-Test Pre- and Post-Intervention for Bigg’s R-SPQ-2F Questionnaire Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Devia-tion Std. Error

Sig. (2-tailed) DM pre – DM post -.78571 4.28051 .80894 -2.44552 .87409 -.971 27 .340 DS pre – DS post -1.34615 3.80465 .74615 -2.88289 .19058 -1.804 25 .083 SM pre – SM post -.10714 3.86187 .72982 -1.60462 1.39033 -.147 27 .884 SS pre – SS post -.17857 3.55958 .67270 -1.55883 1.20169 -.265 27 .793

The non-intervention group results showed tDM (14) = -1.57, p = .140; tDS (14) = .09, p =

.928; tSM (14) = -.25, p = .806; tSS (13) = .52, p = .615 were non-statistically significant in its pre-

and post- intervention scores across all of the learning style variables. Results for the

intervention group across all four variables found tDM (27) = -.97, p = .340; tDS (25) = -1.80, p =

(41)

pre- and post- intervention scores across all of the learning style variables. For both groups of students there were no statistically significant results for changes in student learning styles.

(42)

CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The goal of this study was to examine the impact of mastery learning used as an instructional strategy, specifically with eighth grade language arts students. The study was important in that it focused on eighth grade middle school students, while a majority of previous research has primarily studied secondary and tertiary students. The scope of the study also dealt with more than just academic strides since the goal of modern day education is to promote curiosity, critical thinking, and self-motivation in students. This study focused on examining the following aspects of the impact of mastery learning on students:

Primary Research Question

3. What impact does mastery learning have on student learning styles?

Primary Research Question: What Impact Does Mastery Learning Have on the Academic Gains of Eighth Grade Language Arts Students?

Results from the paired sample t-tests on the fall and spring MAP scores showed that there were non-statistically significant findings for the traditional (non-intervention) group on academic achievement. The results for the mastery learning (intervention) group for academic achievement were statistically significant with a medium effect size on improving these scores.

(43)

These results, to some extent, help negate some of the possible confounding variables that cannot be controlled for in a quasi-experimental study. Since the same teacher presented the same material in the same classroom in a similar time-frame with different academic results, it would seem that the mastery learning had the impact rather than extraneous confounding variables. Although the traditional learning group made improvements in their academic achievement scores (Mfall = 226.13, SD = 6.92; Mspring = 230.13, SD = 18.51), they did not have enough

growth to reach statistical significance, indicating that the improvement in the academic

achievement scores that was statistically significant for the mastery learning group t(27) = -2.44, p = .021; d = -.36 can be attributed to the use of mastery learning in the classroom.

Subsidiary Research Question 1: What Impact Does Mastery Learning Have on Student Self-Efficacy in Language Arts?

The SMOQ was used to measure student sense of self-efficacy in language arts. Of the four different variables being measured in the SMOQ, it seemed logical, based on Keller’s theory, to focus on the confidence variable as a measure of self-efficacy. The traditional group showed a decrease in confidence based on the pre- and post-intervention mean scores, (MConfpre =

25.40, SD = 4.87; MConfpost = 24.80; SD = 2.43), while the intervention group showed a small

increase (MConfpre = 23.48, SD = 4.79; MConfpost = 23.96; SD = 3.55). The results from the t-test

found non-statistically significant results for both the traditional group (tconf (14) = .62, p = .546)

and the mastery learning group (tconf (26) = -.60, p = .557). What this seems to indicate is that

although mastery learning has no statistically significant effect on student sense of self-efficacy, the small increase in self-efficacy of the mastery learning group is better than the small decrease in self-efficacy for the traditional group. This may not be enough of a benefit to change over to mastery learning from traditional learning if this were the only factor being considered.

(44)

In addition to the SMOQ questionnaire, students completed a journal entry at the end of each unit asking how confident he or she felt about learning language arts. These entries were grouped in categories as follows: very confident, confident, somewhat confident, and not confident. The traditional learning group seemed to maintain their confidence level over the units that were covered, regardless of what level they started at. With the mastery learning group, there seemed to be a more dramatic shifts up and down in confidence, although for the most part it seemed that student responses became more positive as the units progressed. There was one unit that the confidence level dipped for several students in both groups, some all the way from being very confident in the chapter before to not confident in the current chapter, but then rebounded with the next chapter. This indicates that the difficulty of the concepts being covered may have a stronger impact than the type of instructional style used, as shown by the lower confidence level for many students across both groups on the one unit.

Subsidiary Research Question 2: What Impact Does Mastery Learning Have on Student Attitudes Towards Learning Language Arts?

The SMOQ was also utilized to measure student attitudes towards learning language arts. Based on Keller’s definitions of the four conditions the must exist for students to be motivated to learn, it seemed that all four variable should be considered. After considering the overall results from the SMOQ, it seemed important to look at the results on each individual variable. Both the traditional group (tattn(14) = 2.60, p = .021; d = .88) and the control group (tattn(27) = 2.50, p =

.019; d = .88) showed a level of negative growth between the pre- and post-intervention data on the attention variable that met statistical significant with a large effect size. Because the groups had similar results with identical effects size, it was difficult to attribute the loss on the attention variable to the introduction of mastery learning, instead this may have been due to the teacher or

(45)

some other confounding variable. These potential confounds could be controlled for in future studies on mastery learning versus traditional learning by having multiple teachers of the same grade in the same subject area conduct the same intervention, although while trying to control for one confound, this may actually introduce more confounds.

For the relevance variable, the traditional learning group did not show statistically significant growth, but the mastery learning group did (trele (27) = -3.20, p = .004; d = -.82) with

a large effect size. This indicates that the use of mastery learning in the classroom does lead to an improved attitude towards learning language arts in terms of relevance. What this would seem to indicate is that mastery learning makes the students feel that the information they are being required to learn in language arts is relevant to something beyond the classroom and will be applicable outside the classroom. This in turn seems to lead to more positive attitudes towards learning language arts.

Neither the traditional learning group nor the mastery learning group reached statistical significance on either the confidence or the satisfaction variable. It does seem worth noting that although statistical significance was not reached, the means for the traditional group on three of the four variables (attention, confidence, and satisfaction) showed small decreases, while for the mastery learning group, three of the four variables (relevance, confidence, and satisfaction) showed positive growth on the pre- and post-intervention means. This would seem to indicate that mastery learning does appear to have a more positive impact on student attitudes towards learning language arts than traditional classroom instruction. The fact that neither type of

instruction had a positive impact on the student attention variable may indicate that this is an area where the instructor can focus on for future growth.

(46)

Each student also completed a journal question at the end of each unit asking how he or she felt about learning language languages arts. Theses responses were then grouped into categories of positive, negative, or neutral responses. The traditional group had an overall positive attitude towards learning language arts. Within this group, the level of confidence on what they had learned did not seem to impact their attitude towards learning language arts. One student that did well in the class repeatedly stated, “I like learning language arts,” but often reported a confidence level of somewhat or okay, showing that grades are not always an indication confidence level, and confidence does not always impact attitude.

The mastery learning group it seemed that for students that struggled, their attitudes improved as they progressed through the chapters. One student in particular wrote on the first week of feedback, “I HATE IT!!”, but by the end was reporting feeling “Good” about learning language arts. Most students that had a positive attitude at the beginning maintained it

throughout the intervention, and for the neutral students, students tended to responded more favorably towards the end.

Students from both groups noted in particular that they liked being able to work ahead and that it was more fun that way. One student in the mastery group consistently responded that language arts was, “Okay but boring,” until the chapter that the students were allowed to work ahead. Thereafter the student was very positive and said, “I like it when we go faster rather than slower, I like the packets.” A student from the traditional group also noted on the same chapter that, “It’s fun when we can work ahead.” Before that the student had responded, “Language arts is OK, but it’s not my favorite,” or just, “It’s OK.”

Overall, the impact of mastery learning on student’s attitudes towards learning language arts does seem to be positive, thereby indicating that its implementation in the classroom should